Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.3924, 3628, 3769 of 2026 and 21788 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4192, 4195, 3900, 3902, 4042 & 4044 of 2026,

18703 and 18705 of 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3924 of 2026

Mikavel

... Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu

Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,

Thiruchendur AWPS – Police Station,

Thoothukudi District.

Crime No. 25/2025

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. xxxx

.... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

3.The District Social Welfare officer,

Thoothukudi.

4.The Superintendent of Police,

Thoothukudi.

5.The Secretary to Government,

Department of Home,

Prohibition and Excise,

1/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Fort St. George, Chennai.

6.The Secretary,

Directorate of Social Welfare,

Fort St. George, Chennai.

7.The Secretary,

Department of Law and Justice,

Fort St. George, Chennai. ... Respondents

(R-3 to R-7 are suo-motu impleaded vide Court order dated

01.06.2026 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3924, 3628, 3769 of

2026 and 21788 of 2025)

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for records pertaining to the Charge sheet taken

on file by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under

POCSO Act, Thoothukudi in Spl SC No.24 of 2026 and Quash the

same.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.Selvakumar

For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3628 of 2026

Narendra Prasath

... Petitioner/Accused No.

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu

Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,

AWPS – Fort Police Station,

Tiruchirappalli District.

Crime No. 16/2025

2/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

2. xxxx

3. The Inspector of Police,

Theni Police Station,

Theni.

4. The Secretary,

Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry,

Chennai.

5. The Secretary,

Kerala Bar Council

(R3 to R5 Suo -Motu Impleaded as per order of this

court dated 23/02/2026 in CrlOP(MD)No.

3628/2026)

6. S.Nanthini

(R6 is suo motu impleaded as per order of this court

dated 26.02.2026 in Crl.OP(MD).3628/2026.)

7. The Superintendent of Police,

Tiruchirapalli District.

(R-7 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated

01.06.2026 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3924, 3628,

3769 of 2026 and 21788 of 2025)

.... Respondents

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the final report in

Spl.SC.No.13/2026 on the file of the learned Mahila Court at

3/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Tiruchirappalli in Crime No.16/2025 dated 18.06.2025 on the file of

the respondent no.1 and quash the same.

For Petitioner: M/s.T.Seeni Syed Amma,

For M/s. Roy and Roy Associates

For R-1 & R-3: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R-2 : Mr.Stevenson

For R-4 : Mr.K.R.Laxman

For R-6 : Mr.Ananda Padmanabhan,

Senior counsel,

For Mr.J.Vishnu

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3769 of 2026

Ibrahim

... Petitioner/Accused No.

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu

Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,

AWPS – Pudukottai,

Pudukottai District.

Crime No. 7/2025 .... Respondent / Complainant

2. Diyana Begam

.... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

3.The District Social Welfare Officer,

Pudukkottai District.

4.The District Collector,

Pudukottai. .... Respondents

4/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(R-3 and R-4 are suo-motu impleaded vide Court order

dated 01.06.2026 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3924,

3628, 3769 of 2026 and 21788 of 2025

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire relating to the impugned Spl.SC

No.73/2025 dated 30.08.2025, on the file of Special Court for

Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases, (Sessions Judge, Mahila Court),

Pudukkottai and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan

For R-1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

For R-2 : Mr.S.Babu

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21788 of 2025

1. S.Muniyandi

2. C.Ayyapan ... Petitioners/Accused

Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep by the Inspector of Police,

Usilampatti All Women Police Station,

Usilampatti,

Madurai District.

Crime No.15 of 2023

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. S.Jeyaraman ..... Respondent /

Defacto Complainant

3.The Secretary to Government,

5/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Department of Home,

Prohibition and Excise,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.

4.The Secretary,

Directorate of Social Welfare,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.

5.The Secretary,

Department of Law and Justice,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.

6.The Commissioner of Police,

Madurai.

7.The Superintendent of Police,

Thoothukudi District. .... Respondents

(R-3 to R-6 are suo-motu impleaded vide Court order

dated 01.06.2026 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3924,

3628, 3769 of 2026 and 21788 of 2025

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the Spl.S.C.No.

1/2024 on the file of the Special Court For Exclusive Trail of Cases

Under POCSO Court, Madurai in Cr.No.15 of 2023 dated 24.08.2023

on the file of the Respondent No.1 U/s.7 and 8.

For Petitioners: Mr.P.Akarathi

For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

6/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

For R-2 : Mr.M.Balamurugan

For R-3 to R-6 : Mr.B.Saravanan,

Senior counsel

COMMON ORDER

Common Prologue:

(For the Compendium of Child-Welfare Oriented Orders under

the POCSO Regime)

This Court has consciously chosen to present the following

four matters together in the form of a single compendium of judicial

orders, not for the purpose of sensationalising instances of alleged

false implication under the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”), but

rather as a larger child-welfare centred constitutional exercise

intended to provoke institutional introspection, academic

engagement, policy reflection, and systemic reform concerning the

manner in which children are presently dealt with within the

criminal justice administration.

2. Though arising from different factual backgrounds, districts,

and individual narratives, all the four cases placed before this Court

revealed one deeply disturbing common feature namely, that

7/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

children who entered the justice delivery system under the protective

umbrella of the POCSO Act ultimately became exposed to varying

degrees of emotional confusion, psychological strain, procedural

insensitivity, institutional inadequacy, repetitive narration of

allegations, social stigma, family conflict, and systemic

mechanicalness. The present compendium therefore emerges not

from a desire to undermine the sanctity of the POCSO Act, but from

an urgent constitutional necessity to strengthen its humane

implementation.

3. The POCSO Act is one of the most progressive and

transformative child-protection legislations enacted by Parliament. It

represents a solemn constitutional promise made by the Republic to

every child that the legal system shall protect them from sexual

exploitation, emotional abuse, intimidation, and institutional neglect.

The statute is fundamentally child-centric in philosophy, trauma-

sensitive in design, and rehabilitative in spirit. However, these cases

collectively reveal that enactment of a welfare legislation alone

cannot achieve its constitutional objectives unless the surrounding

8/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

implementation ecosystem evolves with equal sensitivity, expertise,

coordination, and sincerity.

4. The present matters exposed before this Court several

recurring concerns requiring immediate institutional attention:

(i) absence of trauma-informed investigative approaches;

(ii) mechanical registration and prosecution practices;

(iii) insufficient understanding of child psychology;

(iv) repeated exposure of children to emotionally exhausting

legal procedures;

(v) inadequate counselling and therapeutic support

mechanisms;

(vi) lack of coordinated welfare intervention;

(vii) operational shortcomings in child-sensitive investigation;

(viii) institutional overdependence upon adversarial

procedures;

(ix) inadequate training among stakeholders;

(x) structural gaps in rehabilitation frameworks;

(xi) and legislative silence regarding long-term emotional

recovery and reintegration of children affected by criminal litigation.

9/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

5. The Court is constrained to observe that in many cases, the

criminal justice system continues to function in a manner primarily

focused upon procedural completion rather than holistic child

welfare. A child subjected to repeated institutional interaction

whether before police officers, counsellors, doctors, prosecutors, or

Courts, undergoes an emotional journey that legal records seldom

capture. Every statement recorded, every medical examination

conducted, every confrontation facilitated, and every courtroom

appearance compelled upon a child leaves psychological impressions

upon the developing mind of that child.

6. This Court therefore considers it necessary to emphasise

that the true object of the POCSO Act is not confined merely to

registration of FIRs, filing of charge sheets, or securing convictions.

The soul of child protection jurisprudence lies in preserving

childhood dignity, emotional safety, educational continuity,

psychological healing, social reintegration, and constitutional

compassion. A child who enters the justice system should emerge

protected, reassured, rehabilitated, and emotionally secure not

10/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

burdened with deeper trauma inflicted through insensitive

institutional processes.

7. The necessity for preparing this compendium arises from

the larger constitutional obligation of this Court to ensure that child-

protection jurisprudence evolves beyond procedural ritualism into a

genuinely welfare-oriented justice framework. Courts are not merely

adjudicatory institutions deciding rights and liabilities in isolation.

Constitutional Courts are also institutional guardians entrusted with

the responsibility of identifying systemic shortcomings and initiating

conversations capable of improving the justice delivery mechanism

itself.

8. This Court is therefore placing these matters together as a

single integrated judicial discourse so that the recurring institutional

patterns emerging across these cases are not lost in fragmented

adjudication. The purpose of this compendium is to awaken

institutional sensitivity among all stakeholders functioning within

the POCSO ecosystem including police officers, prosecutors, welfare

authorities, Child Welfare Committees, psychologists, counsellors,

11/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

educators, medical professionals, academicians, policy makers, legal

practitioners, and the judiciary itself.

9. The Court hopes that this compendium shall serve as:

(i) a child-welfare oriented institutional reflection;

(ii) a pedagogic resource for judicial and police training;

(iii) a catalyst for academic and criminal law research;

(iv) a framework for policy introspection;

(v) a stimulus for trauma-sensitive implementation practices;

(vi) and a reminder that child protection requires empathy as

much as enforcement.

10. This compendium also seeks to encourage serious

academic inquiry into:

(i) the psychology of child victims and child witnesses;

(ii) trauma-informed policing;

(iii) secondary victimisation through procedural excess;

(iv) misuse-prevention mechanisms consistent with child

welfare;

(v) rehabilitation deficiencies under the POCSO framework;

12/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(vi) welfare-centric adjudicatory models;

(vii) and the larger relationship between child protection laws

and constitutional compassion.

11. The Court makes it abundantly clear that these orders

should never be interpreted as diluting the seriousness of genuine

child sexual abuse prosecutions. On the contrary, the present

exercise is intended to strengthen the credibility and effectiveness of

the POCSO regime by emphasising that every allegation involving a

child must be handled with the highest degree of caution, care,

expertise, sensitivity, responsibility, and institutional sincerity. For if

child-protection laws are implemented mechanically or insensitively,

the ultimate casualty will always be the child.

12. The present compendium is therefore conceived as a child

welfare measure in the truest constitutional sense aimed not merely

at deciding cases, but at improving the future manner in which

children are treated by the justice delivery system itself. This Court

clarifies that the observations made in the present compendium arise

from the peculiar factual circumstances emerging in the individual

13/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

cases dealt with herein and shall not be construed as general

observations concerning the overall functioning of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 or the criminal justice

administration at large. The present exercise is confined to

addressing specific institutional concerns noticed in the facets of

these cases and to evolving child-sensitive approaches consistent

with constitutional values.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3628 of 2026:

Prologue:

13. The present Criminal Original Petition filed under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., presents before this Court a

deeply disturbing and multi-layered factual matrix touching upon

the misuse of the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the vulnerability of minor children

in emotionally exploitative circumstances, the alarming spectre of

manipulation of criminal law machinery, and certain shocking

allegations concerning abuse of the legal profession itself.

14/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

14. The case initially appeared to be a routine petition seeking

quashment of the final report in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2026 on the file of

the learned Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli. However, as the

proceedings unfolded, several startling facts surfaced before this

Court, compelling this Court to travel beyond the narrow confines of

an ordinary compromise-based quash petition.

15. What initially began as a prosecution under Section 366

IPC corresponding to Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, ultimately revealed

disturbing allegations of emotional coercion, manipulation of a

vulnerable minor girl, possible abuse of legal processes, and grave

suspicions regarding the manner in which the 6

th

respondent

secured enrolment before the 5

th

respondent, the Bar Council.

16. Simultaneously, this Court is equally conscious that

allegations under the POCSO Act cannot be casually brushed aside

merely on the basis of compromise, particularly when the victim was

admittedly a minor at the time of occurrence. Thus, the present

15/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

matter required this Court to proceed with utmost circumspection,

judicial restraint and institutional responsibility.

Case of the prosecution:

17. The petitioner stands arrayed as the sole accused in Crime

No.16 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police for

offences under Section 366 IPC corresponding to Section 87 BNS and

Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution case, as

projected in the FIR and final report, is that the petitioner, who is an

allopathic doctor, became acquainted with the 2

nd

respondent/victim

through Instagram during August 2023. Thereafter, emotional

intimacy allegedly developed between them.

18. According to the prosecution, the petitioner induced the

victim by professing love and promising marriage despite knowing

fully well that she was a minor girl aged below 18 years. It is alleged

that during October 2023, the petitioner met the victim at

Tiruchirapalli, took her in his car towards the Karur Bypass Road

16/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

near Birds Park, subjected her to sexual assault, compelled her to

kiss him, touched her private body parts and indulged in sexual acts

amounting to sexual assault under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO

Act.

19. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner

subsequently threatened the victim using her intimate photographs

and videos and emotionally manipulated her. During the course of

investigation, the victim girl gave a detailed statement before the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli under Section

183(6)(a) BNSS. The said statement contains extensive allegations

against the petitioner including emotional exploitation, sexual

misconduct, threats using intimate images and intimidation. The

final report was thereafter filed before the learned Mahila Court,

Tiruchirapalli and taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2026.

20. During pendency of the present quash petition, a joint

compromise petition came to be filed by the petitioner and the 2

nd

respondent victim stating that the complaint itself was false and that

the victim no longer desired to prosecute the petitioner. According to

17/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

the compromise version, the complaint had allegedly been lodged at

the instigation and coercion of one Nandhini, a practicing lawyer who

claim herself to be the wife of the petitioner.

21. Taking note of the peculiar factual circumstances emerging

in the case, this Court, by orders dated 23.02.2026 and 26.02.2026,

suo motu impleaded:

The Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala as the 5

th

respondent; and

Nandhini as the 6

th

respondent.

22. This Court also called for the entire case diary records

maintained by the 1

st

respondent police. Subsequently, by order

dated 11.03.2026, this Court appointed:

23. Ms. K. Mohana Priya, Regional Psychologist, Department of

Child Welfare and Special Services, Madurai; and Ms. P. Prem Latha,

Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Madurai, as Child

Counsellors to counsel the victim as well as the 6

th

respondent and

submit an independent counselling assessment report before this

Court.

18/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Report of the child counsellors:

24. The report submitted by the Child Counsellors assumes

tremendous significance in the present proceedings. The report

reveals that the victim girl was emotionally vulnerable, estranged

from parental support systems and psychologically susceptible to

emotional influence and intimidation. More importantly, the report

records that:

(i) the victim stated that Nandhini threatened her;

(ii) the complaint was allegedly drafted by Nandhini;

(iii) an advocate was arranged by Nandhini for filing the

complaint;

(iv) the victim claimed that she lodged the complaint not out of

her own volition but due to threat and instigation at the hands of the

6

th

respondent.

25. The report further reveals that the victim specifically

informed the counsellors that she possessed voice recordings relating

to the conduct of the 6

th

respondent. Significantly, the report states

19/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

that during counselling no direct allegation of sexual abuse was

reiterated against the petitioner by the victim girl.

26. Equally disturbing are the observations made by the Child

Counsellors regarding the 6

th

respondent/Nandhini, wherein the

counsellors recorded repetitive narration, inconsistencies, irrelevant

responses, emotional instability and possible disturbances in

thought processing. Though such observations by themselves cannot

be treated as conclusive judicial findings, they nevertheless

constitute extremely relevant surrounding circumstances

necessitating a deeper and independent investigation.

Status reports filed by the respondent police:

27. The status reports filed by the respondent police disclose

startling antecedents concerning the 6

th

respondent. The reports

reveal multiple earlier criminal complaints involving allegations of

similar nature allegedly made by the 6

th

respondent against different

individuals.

20/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

28. The records further reveal that in several earlier criminal

proceedings, the de facto complainant had eventually turned hostile

leading to acquittals. The status report also reveals that the

petitioner herein had separately lodged complaints alleging cheating,

intimidation and extortion as against the 6

th

respondent.

29. More alarmingly, pursuant to directions issued by this

Court, the 3

rd

respondent police verified the enrolment particulars of

the 6

th

respondent before the Kerala Bar Council. The enquiry

conducted by the respondent police prima facie revealed serious

discrepancies regarding:

(i) residential proof;

(ii) Aadhaar particulars;

(iii) identity documents; and

(iv) address details furnished for enrolment before the Bar

Council of Kerala.

30. The materials presently available before this Court prima

facie create grave suspicion regarding the genuineness of the

21/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

documents relied upon by the 6

th

respondent for enrolment before

the 5

th

respondent Bar Council.

Grounds for quash:

31. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the prosecution is entirely fabricated and engineered at the instance

of the 6

th

respondent. It is contended that the victim herself has now

categorically stated before this Court and before the Child

Counsellors that the complaint was lodged due to intimidation and

coercion.

32. The learned counsel would further submit that

continuation of the prosecution despite the victim retracting the

allegations would amount to abuse of process of Court. It is further

argued that the petitioner himself had become a victim of sustained

manipulation and harassment orchestrated by the 6

th

respondent.

Reliance was also placed upon the principles laid down in State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

.

Arguments on either side:

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

22/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

33. The elaborate submissions advanced on behalf of the

petitioner, the victim and the prosecution have already been

extracted in detail in the earlier portions of this order and the same

are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

34. Suffice it to state that the petitioner seeks quashment

based on compromise and alleged falsity of the complaint, whereas

the prosecution would contend that the allegations involve serious

offences under the POCSO Act and therefore require full-fledged

investigation and trial.

Points for consideration:

35. The following points arise for consideration in the present

petition:

i. Whether the final report in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2026 is liable to

be quashed solely on the basis of compromise between the petitioner

and the victim?

ii. Whether the materials placed before this Court disclose

circumstances warranting further investigation regarding the role of

the 6

th

respondent?

23/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

iii. Whether this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under

Section 528 BNSS, can issue consequential directions concerning the

conduct and enrolment of the 6

th

respondent before the 5

th

respondent Bar Council?

Analysis:

36. It is by now well settled that offences under the POCSO Act

stand on an entirely different footing from ordinary private disputes.

The object of the POCSO Act is protection of children from sexual

exploitation and abuse. The legislation is child-centric and founded

upon public interest considerations. Therefore, criminal proceedings

involving offences under the POCSO Act ordinarily cannot be

quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

37. At the same time, the constitutional duty of this Court

under Section 528 BNSS remains to prevent abuse of process and

secure the ends of justice. Therefore, where the materials placed

before the Court themselves disclose possible manipulation of the

24/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

prosecutorial process involving a child victim, this Court cannot

mechanically shut its eyes.

38. A careful perusal of the entire case diary records reveals

that the petitioner and the victim had indeed engaged in extensive

obscene and sexually explicit electronic communications through

WhatsApp and other social media platforms. Such materials

undoubtedly cast serious suspicion upon the subsequent

compromise version now projected before this Court. However, one

crucial fact remains undeniable.

39. The victim was admittedly a minor girl at the time of the

alleged occurrence and at the time of such electronic exchanges.

Therefore, even if the victim presently seeks compromise after

attaining majority, the Court cannot completely erase the statutory

protection afforded to her during minority. This Court is therefore

not inclined to quash the final report in a routine manner merely on

the basis of compromise.

25/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

40. However, the materials presently available before this

Court equally disclose prima facie circumstances indicating possible

coercion, manipulation and instigation by the 6

th

respondent. The

counselling report assumes tremendous significance in this regard.

The report specifically records that the victim stated that:

(i) the complaint was drafted by the 6

th

respondent;

(ii) the victim was threatened;

(iii) an advocate was arranged;

(iv) the complaint was lodged under pressure.

41. If such allegations are ultimately found to be true, the

same would attract serious consequences under Section 22 of the

POCSO Act relating to false complaints and false information. At the

same time, Section 22 specifically protects children from prosecution

for false complaints. Therefore, the focus of investigation necessarily

has to be upon the possibility of instigation, coercion or

manipulation by adults behind the complaint mechanism.

42. The legal profession occupies a sacred constitutional

position within the justice delivery system. Courts function on the

26/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

foundational assumption that advocates enrolled before statutory

Bar Councils possess authenticity, integrity and professional

responsibility. Unfortunately, recent times have witnessed disturbing

instances involving fake lawyers, forged enrolment records and

unethical professional conduct.

43. The present case prima facie reveals disturbing allegations

regarding the enrolment credentials of the 6

th

respondent. The status

report filed by the respondent police raises serious questions

regarding the genuineness of the Aadhaar particulars, residential

proof and identity documents furnished by the 6

th

respondent before

the 5

th

respondent Bar Council.

44. If persons lacking genuine credentials infiltrate the legal

profession and thereafter utilise legal knowledge to threaten,

manipulate and exploit emotionally vulnerable citizens, the same

would strike at the very root of public confidence in the justice

delivery system. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that

an independent discreet enquiry by the Bar Council of Kerala

becomes absolutely necessary.

27/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

45. The facts unearthed during the present proceedings

disclose several disputed questions requiring deeper investigation. A

slight tilt either in favour of the petitioner or against the victim may

result in grave miscarriage of justice. The factual complexities

emerging in the present proceedings disclose competing narratives

requiring careful independent examination in accordance with law.

Therefore, instead of prematurely terminating the prosecution or

blindly permitting continuation of trial, this Court is of the view that

a focused enquiry regarding the role of the 6

th

respondent under

Section 22 of the POCSO Act becomes absolutely necessary.

46. In the result:

i. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirapalli District is suo

motu impleaded as the 7

th

respondent. Registry is directed to carry

out the necessary amendments in the cause title.

ii. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirapalli District, shall

cause a preliminary enquiry through a responsible officer not below

the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police regarding the allegations

emerging from the counselling assessment report and the materials

28/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

placed before this Court, particularly concerning possible offences

relatable to Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and other cognizable offences, if any. If the

enquiry discloses commission of cognizable offences, appropriate

action shall thereafter be taken strictly in accordance with law.

iii. The said exercise shall conclude within a period of six (6)

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and report

compliance before this Court on 01.08.2026. The petitioner, 2

nd

respondent and 6

th

respondent shall fully cooperate with the enquiry.

iv. The materials presently placed before this Court raise

certain prima facie concerns regarding the authenticity of the

enrolment-related documents furnished by the 6

th

respondent before

the Bar Council. Since the integrity of the legal profession forms an

essential component of public confidence in the justice delivery

system, this Court considers it appropriate to request the 5

th

respondent/Bar Council of Kerala to independently verify the

genuineness of the relevant enrolment records in accordance with

law and report compliance on 1

st

August,2026.

29/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

v. Till completion of the aforesaid enquiry, all further

proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2026 on the file of the learned

Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli shall remain stayed.

vi. The report of the Child Counsellors shall form a part and

parcel of this order.

47. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition

stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions, if any, are closed.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3924 of 2026:

Prologue:

48. The facts of the present case reveal a tragic narrative where

the victim herself appears to have become the casualty of sustained

societal pressure, emotional vulnerability and familial manipulation.

This Court is therefore compelled not only to examine the legality of

the prosecution but also to address the larger concerns relating to

the welfare, rehabilitation and psychological well-being of the victim.

Case of the prosecution:

30/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

49. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the second

respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that

the petitioner, who is her distant relative, had sexually harassed and

sexually assaulted her during the period when she was a minor.

50. According to the prosecution, the petitioner used to behave

in a sexually inappropriate manner whenever the victim returned

home during vacation from her hostel and had allegedly subjected

her to repeated sexual assault. It is further alleged that on one

occasion in May 2022, the petitioner attempted to force himself upon

the victim and assaulted her physically when she resisted. The

prosecution further alleged that the petitioner, along with the other

accused persons, namely Regina, Grenappu and Esther, criminally

intimidated the victim and prevented her from disclosing the alleged

incidents to anybody else.

51. Based on the complaint dated 12.07.2025, the first

respondent police registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2025 for

offences under Sections 3(a), 4, 5(n), 5(l), 6, 16 and 17 of the POCSO

Act and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Upon

31/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report

before the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under

the POCSO Act, Thoothukudi and the same was taken on file in

Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2026.

Grounds for quash:

52. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the entire prosecution is a fabricated one engineered by one

Sangeetha and Vasanthi, who allegedly exploited the emotional

vulnerability of the victim in order to wreak vengeance against the

petitioner owing to pre-existing family disputes.

53. The learned counsel would submit that the victim herself

had, in her statement recorded under Section 183(6)(a) BNSS before

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, categorically stated

that the petitioner had not committed any sexual offence against her

and that she was compelled by others to lodge the complaint.

54. It is further contended that despite such categorical

exculpatory statement made before the learned Magistrate, the first

32/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

respondent police mechanically proceeded to file the final report

without conducting a fair and impartial investigation. The learned

counsel therefore submitted that continuation of the criminal

proceedings would amount to gross abuse of process of law and

prayed for quashing of the final report.

55. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side)

appearing for the 1

st

respondent submitted that the allegations made

in the complaint were grave in nature and disclosed repeated acts of

penetrative sexual assault committed during the minority of the

victim. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the

victim had initially given consistent statements implicating the

petitioner and such statements were also videographed during

investigation. It was further argued that the subsequent retraction

by the victim appears to be an afterthought and cannot

automatically invalidate the prosecution case.

56. Reliance was also placed upon the status report filed by

the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchendur Sub Division,

wherein it has been stated that the subsequent contradictory

33/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

statement of the victim is not supported by independent material

and that the original complaint disclosed prima facie credible

allegations warranting prosecution.

57. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Points for consideration:

58. In the light of the rival submissions, the following points

arise for consideration before this Court:-

(i) Whether the continuation of the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.

24 of 2026 would amount to abuse of process of law?

(ii) Whether the materials placed before this Court warrant

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the final

report?

(iii) Whether further directions are required in the interest of

the welfare and rehabilitation of the victim?

34/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Analysis:

59. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528

BNSS corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to secure the

ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of Court. Though such

jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly, the constitutional obligation

of this Court to prevent miscarriage of justice cannot be diluted

merely because the allegations arise under the POCSO Act.

60. This Court is fully conscious that offences under the

POCSO Act are serious offences involving societal concern and

ordinarily the Court would be reluctant to interdict the prosecution

at the threshold. However, the present case does not rest merely

upon a subsequent compromise or settlement. The present case

stands on a completely different footing.

61. A crucial circumstance that stares at the prosecution is the

categorical statement made by the victim before the learned Judicial

Magistrate under Section 183(6)(a) BNSS. The victim had specifically

stated that the petitioner had not committed any offence against her

and that the complaint came to be lodged at the instance of others.

35/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Shockingly, despite such statement, the investigating agency

proceeded to mechanically file a final report implicating the

petitioner without properly addressing the impact and evidentiary

significance of such exculpatory statement.

62. The learned Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the

final report, also appears to have mechanically taken the same on file

without considering the serious inconsistencies apparent on the face

of the record.

63. This Court, taking note of the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, directed the production of the victim

before this Court and ordered counselling through Ms K. Mohana

Priya, Regional Psychologist, Department of Child Welfare and

Special Services, Madurai, and Ms P. Prem Latha, Chairperson,

Child Welfare Committee, Madurai.

64. The counselling report submitted before this Court paints a

deeply disturbing picture. The report reveals that the victim had

earlier undergone traumatic experiences and had previously lodged

36/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

another POCSO complaint against certain other individuals. The

report further reveals that she comes from an emotionally unstable

background, having lost paternal support and having a mentally

disturbed mother.

65. Most importantly, the report records that the victim stated

during counselling that the present complaint against the petitioner

was lodged under the influence and pressure exerted by Sangeetha

and Vasanthi. The victim has further expressed her unwillingness to

continue the proceedings and has specifically stated that

continuation of the case is seriously affecting her marital life and

family stability.

66. The counselling assessment reflects significant emotional

vulnerability of the victim. The counselling report reflects that the

victim is repeatedly vulnerable to external influence and social

manipulation. Her orphaned and emotionally fragile condition

appears to have been exploited for settling personal scores.

37/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

67. The POCSO Act was enacted in consonance with the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by

India on 11.12.1992. The soul of the enactment lies not merely in

punishment, but in ensuring sustained safety, dignity, emotional

rehabilitation and holistic welfare of children. Mere enactment of

stringent penal provisions by itself cannot achieve the legislative

object unless there exists adequate societal awareness and

institutional sensitivity.

68. Section 39 of the POCSO Act empowers the State to

prepare guidelines enabling child victims to obtain assistance of

experts. Likewise, Section 43(a) and (b) cast statutory duties upon

the Central and State Governments to spread awareness regarding

the Act and impart training to stakeholders involved in

implementation.

69. Had there been adequate societal awareness regarding the

consequences of foisting false POCSO complaints, many vulnerable

individuals would not have been manipulated into becoming

instruments of personal vendetta. Irresponsible invocation of

stringent penal provisions, if established in a given case, may

38/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

adversely affect both innocent individuals and the credibility of

genuine child protection mechanisms.

70. This Court is constrained to observe that while the POCSO

Rules, 2020 provide for victim compensation under Rule 9, there

remains an alarming absence of sustained rehabilitative mechanisms

to restore the educational, vocational and psychological stability of

vulnerable victims. Such legislative gaps require immediate policy

attention.

71. In the peculiar facts of the present case, continuation of

the prosecution would serve no useful purpose. The materials placed

before this Court unmistakably demonstrate that the prosecution is

riddled with serious infirmities and that the victim herself has

consistently ruled out the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged

offence during the later stages.

72. This Court is therefore satisfied that permitting the

prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of process of law.

The present case demonstrates how a vulnerable young woman

39/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

became entangled between law and livelihood, accusation and

survival, trauma and societal pressure. The criminal justice system

must never become a weapon for personal vendetta at the cost of a

vulnerable victim’s future.

73. This case also underscores the urgent necessity for

widespread awareness programmes across the State regarding the

responsible invocation of the POCSO Act, the consequences of false

implication and the need for sustained psychosocial rehabilitation of

victims.

74. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and

the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2026 on the file of the learned

Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act,

Thoothukudi, are hereby quashed. The report of the Child

Counsellors shall form a part and parcel of this order.

75. This Court further directs:

(i)The 3

rd

respondent Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi

District, shall cause a preliminary enquiry through a responsible

40/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police

regarding the allegations emerging from the counselling assessment

report and the materials placed before this Court, particularly

concerning possible offences relatable to Section 22 of the Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and other cognizable

offences, if any. If the enquiry discloses commission of cognizable

offences, appropriate action shall thereafter be taken strictly in

accordance with law.

(ii)The enquiry shall be completed within a period of six (6)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Post the matter

before this Court on 01.08.2026 under the caption “for reporting

compliance”.

(iii)The District Social Welfare officer, Thoothukudi, the

Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, The Secretary to

Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St.

George, Chennai;The Secretary, Directorate of Social Welfare, Fort St.

George, Chennai;and The Secretary, Department of Law and Justice,

Fort St. George, Chennai are suo motu impleaded as Respondents

3,4,5,6 and 7. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary

amendments in the cause list.

41/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(iv)The 1

st

respondent is directed to take appropriate steps

through the third respondent to provide necessary skill development

training to the victim and facilitate sustainable vocational

rehabilitation.

(v)The first respondent and the third respondent are further

directed to facilitate continuous counselling sessions for the victim

through the Regional Psychologist, Thoothukudi and the Clinical

Psychologist attached to the Thoothukudi Government Medical

College Hospital, so as to enable her to overcome the trauma and

emotional distress suffered by her. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3769 of 2026:

Prologue:

76. The case on hand cannot be approached either with

mechanical suspicion against the accused or with unquestioning

acceptance of the subsequent compromise narrative projected by the

parties. The Court is required to tread with extreme constitutional

caution, balancing the presumption of innocence of the accused, the

sanctity of child protection laws, the possibility of misuse of criminal

42/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

process, and above all, the continuing welfare and safety of the child

victim.

Case of the prosecution:

77. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.07 of 2025

registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections

296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 5(n), 5(l)

and 6(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu

Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

78. The prosecution case, as projected in the final report, is

that the petitioner, who is the father of the minor victim girl aged

about 14 years, repeatedly subjected the child to aggravated

penetrative sexual assault between 20.10.2024 and 30.06.2025

under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Based on the complaint

lodged by the second respondent/mother of the victim, the FIR came

to be registered on 04.07.2025 and thereafter a final report was filed

in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 before the learned Special Court for

Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases, Pudukkottai. The petitioner was

43/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The matter thereafter

stood posted for trial.

Grounds for quash:

79. The petitioner seeks quashment primarily on the following

grounds:

(i) that the allegations are the outcome of matrimonial discord

and property dispute between the petitioner and the second

respondent;

(ii) that the petitioner had entered India only on 28.08.2024

and therefore the allegation of prolonged abuse for several years is

false;

(iii) that the medical and laboratory evidence do not

conclusively support the allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual

assault;

(iv) that the second respondent herself has now filed an

affidavit stating that no allegation of sexual assault was originally

made by her against the petitioner and that the prosecution

narrative was subsequently developed during investigation;

44/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(v) that the maternal grandmother of the victim, arrayed as

LW-3, has also filed an affidavit asserting that no such allegations

were ever made by the child to her;

(vi) that continuation of the proceedings would amount to

abuse of process of Court.

80. The second respondent/de-facto complainant has filed an

additional affidavit before this Court stating that though she had

contacted Child Help Line No.1098 complaining of harassment by

the petitioner under the influence of alcohol, she had not intended to

allege sexual assault against the minor child and that the allegations

were subsequently developed during investigation. The second

respondent has further stated that she lodged the complaint in an

emotional state to “teach a lesson” to her husband owing to repeated

domestic harassment and that there was no sexual assault upon the

child.

81. The maternal grandmother of the victim, who is arrayed as

LW-3, has also filed an affidavit stating that the child is presently

under her care and custody, studying in another school, and that

45/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

upon enquiry she did not find any allegation of sexual assault

against the petitioner.

Submissions on either side:

82. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

entire prosecution is a tragic consequence of matrimonial discord

and emotional instability within the family. It was further contended

that the second respondent and other prosecution witnesses are no

longer supporting the prosecution case and therefore the possibility

of conviction is completely remote.

83. The learned counsel submitted that compelling the child

victim to undergo trial despite the categorical stand of the mother

and grandmother would only result in secondary victimisation and

psychological trauma to the child. The learned counsel therefore

sought quashment of the proceedings.

84. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the statements

recorded during investigation disclose grave offences under the

46/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

POCSO Act. It was submitted that subsequent compromise or

rapprochement between the husband and wife cannot by itself erase

serious allegations involving child sexual abuse.

85. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that

in several cases involving familial sexual abuse, victims and family

members tend to retract owing to emotional dependence, societal

pressure, economic insecurity, fear of stigma, or restoration of

matrimonial ties. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the

subsequent affidavits cannot automatically demolish the prosecution

case.

86. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Points for consideration:

87. The following points arise for consideration in this petition:

(i) Whether the continuation of the prosecution would serve the

ends of justice?

47/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(ii) Whether the subsequent affidavits filed by the de-facto

complainant and LW-3 render the possibility of conviction wholly

remote?

(iii) Whether quashment of the proceedings would compromise

the continued safety and welfare of the child?

(iv) What consequential directions are necessary to secure the

best interests of the child?

Analysis:

88. The allegations in the FIR are undoubtedly grave. They

pertain to accusations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault by

the father upon his own minor daughter. Equally disturbing,

however, is the subsequent volte-face adopted by the de-facto

complainant and other material witnesses.

89. This Court is unable to mechanically accept either version

at face value. If the original allegations are true, the child remains

vulnerable and unsafe. If the allegations are false, then the

possibility of exaggeration or distortion of allegations amidst

matrimonial discord becomes equally alarming and would attract the

consequences contemplated under Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

48/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

The present case therefore places the parties at a dangerous

crossroads between law, family survival, social stigma, and child

welfare.

90. The offences alleged under Sections 5(n), 5(l) and 6 of the

POCSO Act pertain to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a

relative or person in domestic relationship with the child. Such

offences are unquestionably serious and ordinarily incapable of being

quashed merely on the basis of compromise. However, the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS is intended to

prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

91. In the present case, the very foundation of the prosecution

is substantially shaken by the subsequent affidavits filed by the de-

facto complainant and LW-3. The Court is conscious that retraction

by victims in sexual offences cannot be viewed simplistically. Courts

must remain alive to the possibility of coercion, compromise, fear,

economic dependence, or emotional pressure.

49/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

92. At the same time, criminal law cannot be converted into a

ritualistic exercise where the Court knowingly sends a child into a

hostile trial despite the practical collapse of the prosecution. If the

proceedings are allowed to continue, the inevitable consequence

would be that the mother, grandmother, and possibly the child

herself may turn hostile before the Trial Court. Such a process would

not advance the cause of justice. Rather, it may expose the child to

repeated trauma, stigma, and emotional breakdown.

93. The POCSO Act is fundamentally child-centric legislation.

The Court cannot lose sight of the distinction between punitive

justice and welfare justice. The true purpose of the statute is not

merely to punish offenders but to ensure sustained safety,

psychological recovery, educational continuity, and social

reintegration of the child.

94. Section 39 of the POCSO Act empowers the State to

prepare guidelines for child assistance and support mechanisms.

Section 43(a) and (b) of the Act mandate awareness generation and

training among stakeholders regarding implementation of the

statute.

50/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

95. Unfortunately, despite the legislative framework,

widespread public awareness regarding the implications of false

POCSO complaints continues to remain inadequate. Had sufficient

awareness mechanisms existed, citizens would have understood the

devastating repercussions of invoking such stringent penal

provisions irresponsibly. False POCSO cases, apart from harming the

accused, consume enormous judicial time and investigative

resources which ought to be devoted towards genuine child victims.

96. Simultaneously, this Court cannot ignore another equally

serious legislative gap. Though Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020,

provides for victim compensation, there remains inadequate

statutory focus upon sustained educational, psychological,

vocational, and rehabilitative support for children whose lives are

destabilised owing to victimisation or prosecution-related stigma. The

constitutional Courts therefore cannot remain passive spectators.

Judicial intervention becomes necessary to bridge such welfare gaps

wherever possible.

51/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

97. Merely quashing the proceedings and permitting the

parties to walk away would be irresponsible. Even assuming the

prosecution narrative to be exaggerated or false, the affidavits

themselves disclose repeated domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and

unstable matrimonial conditions. The Court therefore cannot blindly

restore the status quo ante without protective mechanisms. The

child’s continued welfare must remain the paramount consideration.

98. This Court is therefore inclined to quash the proceedings,

not on the basis of a private compromise simpliciter, but upon a

carefully calibrated welfare-centric approach coupled with continuing

protective directions.The child also expressed her ambitions of

pursuing higher studies.

99. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Criminal Original

Petition is allowed on the following terms:

(i) The proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2025 on the file of the

Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Cases (Sessions Judge,

Mahila Court), Pudukkottai are hereby quashed.

(ii) The District Social Welfare Officer, Pudukkottai District,

and the District Collector, Pudukottai are suo motu impleaded as the

52/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

third and fourth respondents. The Registry is directed to carry out

necessary amendments in the cause title.

(iii) The District Child Protection Unit, Pudukkottai District,

under the supervision of the District Social Welfare Officer, shall

periodically monitor the educational continuity, emotional well-being,

and safety of the minor child and submit confidential welfare

assessment reports once in six months before the jurisdictional

Special Court until the child attains majority.

(iv) The first respondent police shall produce the petitioner

before the third respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

(v) The third respondent shall engage the Regional

Psychologist, Department of Child Welfare and Special Services,

Pudukkottai/Madurai Region, for intensive counselling and

sensitisation of the petitioner regarding parental responsibility,

consequences of abusive conduct, child safety, and behavioural

reform.

(vi)The fourth respondent shall ensure that the victim

completes her school education and higher education by periodical

monitoring.

53/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(vii) The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent

police on the first day of every English calendar month for a period of

two years commencing from June 2026.

(viii) Post the matter before this Court under the caption “For

Reporting Compliance” on 01.08.2026 by the 3

rd

respondent .

(ix) It is made clear that if any future complaint involving

harassment, abuse, intimidation, or endangerment of the child is

received, the authorities shall proceed independently in accordance

with law uninfluenced by the present order. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21788 of 2025:

Prologue:

100. The present case demonstrates how the very legislation

intended to protect children can become an instrument in the hands

of warring adults to settle personal scores, familial rivalry and village

factionalism, thereby converting innocent children into unwilling

participants in fabricated sexual narratives.

54/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

101. This Court is constrained to record, that the

circumstances emerging from the records indicate that two cross

complaints appear to have arisen out of pre-existing hostility

between the families, thereby requiring heightened investigative

caution consistent with the objectives of the POCSO Act. What is

more alarming is the possibility that a child may have been

compelled by adult family members to repeatedly project a false

narrative of sexual assault before institutions of law, thereby

subjecting the child herself to emotional burden, psychological

confusion, fear and social trauma. This Court cannot remain a mute

spectator when childhood itself becomes collateral damage in adult

hostility.

Case of the prosecution:

102. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the second

respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the first

respondent police on 07.06.2023 alleging that his minor daughter

YYYY, aged about 15 years and studying in X Standard, was

subjected to sexual assault by the petitioners on 04.03.2023 at

about 11.30 p.m.

55/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

103. According to the complaint, while the victim girl had gone

outside her residence to attend nature’s call, the petitioners allegedly

caught hold of her hands, dragged her, hugged her, kissed her and

compelled her to submit to their wishes. On hearing her alarm, the

de facto complainant allegedly rushed to the place of occurrence and

the accused fled away.

104. Based upon the said allegations, Crime No.15 of 2023

came to be registered for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the

POCSO Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Upon completion of investigation,

final report was laid and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.1

of 2024 by the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases

under POCSO Act, Madurai.

Grounds raised for quash:

105. The petitioners seek quashment of the prosecution mainly

on the grounds that:

(i)the prosecution is false and motivated;

56/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(ii)Crime No.15 of 2023 is a counterblast to Crime No.14 of

2023;

(iii)both crimes came to be registered on the same day;

(iv)there existed prior hostility between the families;

(v)there are material contradictions regarding the place of

occurrence;

(vi)there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; and

(vii)continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of

process of Court.

Arguments on either side:

106. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the entire prosecution is the result of deep-rooted

village rivalry and retaliatory vengeance. According to the petitioners,

the granddaughter of the first petitioner, namely XXXX, herself had

been subjected to harassment by Lakshmanan and others, leading to

multiple complaints by Selvi, but the police failed to take action.

107. It was submitted that only after a private complaint was

filed before the jurisdictional Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., Crime

57/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

No.14 of 2023 was registered and immediately thereafter the present

counter case in Crime No.15 of 2023 came to be foisted. The learned

counsel further pointed out:

(i)the delay of more than three months in registration of FIR;

(ii)contradictions regarding place of occurrence; and

(iii) absence of independent witnesses. It was therefore argued

that the continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of

process of Court.

108. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the statement

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prima facie attract Sections 7 and 8 of the

POCSO Act. It was further contended that the plea of counterblast

and previous enmity are all matters for trial.

109. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

adopted the submissions of the prosecution.

110. During the course of hearing, when this Court specifically

questioned the first respondent police regarding the genuineness of

58/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

the allegation that Crime No.15 of 2023 had been registered only as

a counterblast to Crime No.14 of 2023, the response of the police

was not in the negative. The response deeply disturbed the

conscience of this Court.

111. This Court therefore deemed it necessary to

independently ascertain the psychological condition and emotional

wellbeing of both the victim children involved in Crime Nos.14 and

15 of 2023. Consequently, by order dated 07.01.2026, this Court

directed production of both the children for in-camera interaction

and appointed Ms.Mohana Priya, Regional Psychologist, Department

of Child Welfare and Special Services, Madurai; and Ms.P.Prema

Latha, Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Madurai, as Child

Counsellors.

112. On 21.02.2026, after interacting with the children, this

Court directed counselling sessions and later ordered clinical

psychological evaluation through Dr.N.Sureshkumar, Clinical

Psychologist, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

59/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

113. The report submitted by Dr.N.Sureshkumar assumes

considerable significance. The assessment reveals that victim XXXX:

(i) remained fully cooperative throughout counselling;

(ii) was emotionally stable;

(iii) possessed normal intellectual capacity with IQ of 90;

(iv) exhibited no trauma-related symptoms;

(v) showed no major psychopathology; and

(vi) displayed normal behavioural parameters.

114. The counselling process appears to have provided

emotional reassurance and psychological stability to the said child,

thereby reinforcing the importance of trauma-sensitive therapeutic

intervention in matters involving children.

115. Significantly, the Child Counsellor informed this Court

that victim YYYY refused to cooperate for counselling and did not

appear before the Clinical Psychologist out of fear that her elders

would be prosecuted for foisting a false case. The conduct of YYYY,

the alleged victim in this case, at the instance of her parents and

elders at home cannot be brushed aside lightly.

60/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

116. Though ordinarily non-cooperation by itself may not

become conclusive, in the peculiar factual matrix of the present case,

the refusal assumes enormous significance when viewed

cumulatively along with:

(i) the admitted existence of rival POCSO complaints;

(ii) registration of both crimes on the same day;

(iii) the response of the respondent police before this Court;

(iv) the surrounding circumstances emerging during

counselling; and

(v) the overall factual narrative.

117. The cumulative circumstances emerging from the records

create substantial doubt regarding the sustainability of the

prosecution, thereby warranting interference under Section 528

BNSS.

118. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

61/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Point for consideration:

119. The principal point that arises for consideration is

whether continuation of the prosecution in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2024

would amount to abuse of process of Court warranting interference

under Section 528 BNSS?

Analysis:

120. The POCSO Act is not an ordinary penal legislation. It is a

constitutional commitment towards preservation of childhood

dignity. The statute recognises that a child subjected to sexual

exploitation carries psychological scars far beyond physical injury.

Equally, a child compelled to repeatedly narrate a false sexual

narrative at the instance of adults may also suffer emotional

confusion, social fear, shame and psychological burden.

121. The investigating machinery must therefore display the

highest degree of sensitivity before registering allegations under the

POCSO Act. Registration of “case and counter case” under the

POCSO Act, without careful preliminary assessment, reflects

insufficient institutional sensitivity.

62/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

122. This Court is constrained to observe that the respondent

police, particularly officers attached to the All Women Police Station,

Usilampatti, Madurai, have displayed complete insensibility towards:

(i) the object of the POCSO Act;

(ii) the social consequences of POCSO prosecution;

(iii) the emotional wellbeing of child victims;

(iv) the trauma associated with repeated recording of

statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.;

(v) the stigma of being involved in sexual offence proceedings;

and

(vi) the statutory safeguard under Section 22 of the POCSO Act

concerning false complaints.

123. The respondent police appear to have registered rival

POCSO complaints as though they were ordinary factional FIRs.

Such conduct strikes at the very soul of child protection

jurisprudence. The continuation of the present prosecution would

therefore amount to gross abuse of process of Court. This Court is

satisfied that the present case falls within the categories recognised

63/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

2

warranting exercise of inherent

jurisdiction.

124. In view of the serious institutional concerns emerging in

the present matter, this Court suo motu impleads:

(i) The Secretary to Government, Department of Home,

Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Chennai; (ii) The Secretary,

Directorate of Social Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai; (iii) The

Secretary, Department of Law and Justice, Fort St. George, Chennai;

(iv) The Commissioner of Police, Madurai, The Superintendent of

Police, Thoothukudi District, as respondent Nos.3 to 7 respectively.

Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments in cause

title. Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Advocate General takes

notice for respondents 3 to 7.

125. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands

allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2024 are hereby

quashed. The 7

th

respondent /Superintendent of Police,

Thoothukudi District, shall examine the materials placed before this

Court and conduct an appropriate enquiry regarding the allegations

21992 Supp(1) SCC 335

64/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

of instigation and coercion attributed to the persons named in the

counselling report and thereafter proceed in accordance with law, if

any cognizable offences are disclosed.

126. The enquiry shall specifically examine offences relatable

to false information, fabrication of evidence and offences under

Section 22 of the POCSO Act. The investigation shall be completed

within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Compliance report shall be filed before this Court on 01.08.2026.

Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 shall consider framing and formulating a

coordinated State-wide sensitisation programme titled:

“SINGAPEN SENSITISATION WORKSHOP”

127. The workshops shall focus upon:

(i)trauma-sensitive implementation of the POCSO Act;

(ii)child psychology and emotional wellbeing;

(iii)responsible handling of child victims;

(iv)prevention of misuse of POCSO provisions;

(v)sensitivity during recording of statements;

(vi)ethical child interviewing techniques; and

65/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(vii)awareness regarding Section 22 of the POCSO Act.

128. The workshops shall be conducted in phased manner for:

(i)all the female police officers in the State of Tamil Nadu from

the cadre of Superintendent of Police and below;

(ii)Regional Psychologists attached to the Department of Child

Welfare and Special Services;

(iii)all District Social Welfare Officers;

(iv)Protection Officers appointed under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act; and

(v)all District-level Chairpersons and Members of Child Welfare

Committees.

129. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to consider

formulating a coordinated sensitisation and training programme for

stakeholders involved in implementation of the POCSO Act, focusing

upon trauma-sensitive investigation, child psychology, ethical

interviewing practices, prevention of secondary victimisation, and

awareness regarding Section 22 of the Act. The Inspector General of

Police, Singapen Special Striking Force and the Secretary,

66/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

Directorate of Social Welfare shall jointly coordinate implementation

of the training programme throughout the State.

130. In the result, the present case should serve as a wake-up

call to all stakeholders functioning within the child protection

framework, more particularly police officers, counsellors, welfare

authorities, prosecutors and institutions entrusted with the care of

children. The counselling process undertaken in the present case

demonstrates that children require reassurance, emotional safety

and therapeutic support, and not mechanical exposure to repetitive

legal procedures. The law must therefore move beyond procedural

compliance and evolve into a child-sensitive justice system rooted in

compassion.

131. Childhood is not a battlefield for adult vengeance. Courts,

institutions and society alike bear a collective constitutional duty to

ensure that children are protected not only from sexual offences, but

also from the emotional violence of fabricated accusations and

irresponsible institutional processes.

67/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

132. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal

Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. The report of the

child counsellors and the clinical assessment shall form a part and

parcel of this order.

Common epilogue:

133. Before concluding this compendium, this Court considers

it necessary to reiterate that the present exercise is fundamentally

rooted in child welfare, institutional sensitivity, and constitutional

responsibility. The objective of these orders is not to weaken the

implementation of the POCSO Act, but to strengthen its humane and

child-centric enforcement through deeper institutional introspection.

134. The cases forming part of this compendium collectively

reveal that the protection of children cannot be achieved merely

through the mechanical invocation of penal provisions. True child

protection lies in the manner in which institutions respond to

children after the legal process begins. The justice system must

therefore evolve from being merely accusation-centric into becoming

68/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

genuinely child-sensitive, trauma-informed, rehabilitative, and

psychologically aware.

135. The Court is deeply conscious that every child entering

the criminal justice system carries emotional vulnerability that

cannot be measured through procedural records alone. A child

repeatedly exposed to investigation, medical examination,

counselling, adversarial questioning, family conflict, social stigma,

and institutional interaction may silently endure emotional

consequences far beyond the comprehension of conventional legal

processes. The justice delivery system must therefore recognise that

child welfare extends beyond punishment of offenders and includes

emotional recovery, psychological reassurance, educational

continuity, social reintegration, and restoration of dignity.

136. The present matters demonstrate that several

stakeholders functioning within the child protection framework

continue to face significant institutional challenges, including lack of

specialised expertise, insufficient trauma-sensitive training,

operational inadequacies, fragmented welfare coordination, absence

of sustained rehabilitative mechanisms, and inadequate integration

69/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

of psychological support systems within criminal procedure. These

shortcomings are not merely administrative concerns; they directly

impact the emotional lives of children who depend upon institutional

protection.

137. This Court therefore emphasises that implementation of

the POCSO Act requires collective constitutional participation from

every stakeholder:

(i) police officers must investigate with caution and sensitivity;

(ii) prosecutors must proceed with responsibility and fairness;

(iii) counsellors and psychologists must be integrated

meaningfully rather than symbolically;

(iv) welfare authorities must actively monitor rehabilitation;

(v) educational institutions must support emotional continuity;

(vi) policy makers must address legislative and structural gaps;

(vii) academicians must engage in empirical and

interdisciplinary research;

(viii) and Courts themselves must adopt welfare-centric

adjudicatory approaches rooted in constitutional compassion.

138. The Court hopes that this compendium shall become a

useful resource for:

70/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

(i) judicial academies;

(ii) police training institutions;

(iii) criminology departments;

(iv) law universities;

(v) psychology researchers;

(vi) child rights organisations;

(vii) welfare administrators;

(viii) and all institutions involved in implementation of child

protection laws.

139. The present orders are intended to stimulate constructive

discourse regarding:

(i) trauma-sensitive criminal justice administration;

(ii) child psychology within adversarial litigation;

(iii) prevention of secondary victimisation;

(iv) counselling and rehabilitation models;

(v) institutional coordination mechanisms;

(vi) and welfare-centric interpretation of child protection

statutes.

140. This Court firmly believes that the future strength of the

POCSO regime will depend not merely upon the severity of

71/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

punishments prescribed in statute books, but upon the sensitivity,

sincerity, expertise, and humanity with which the institutions of the

State treat children who come within the justice system. Childhood

is fragile, so institutions dealing with children must therefore

function not with mechanical rigidity, but with constitutional

tenderness.

141. The true success of child protection jurisprudence will not

be measured solely by conviction statistics, but by whether children

emerging from the justice system feel protected, heard, reassured,

rehabilitated, and emotionally safe. For ultimately, the greatest

constitutional obligation of every civilised society is not merely to

punish wrongdoers, but to preserve the dignity, emotional well-being,

and future of its children.

142. This Court fervently hopes that the “Singapen

Sensitisation Workshops” directed through this order become not a

mere administrative exercise, but the beginning of a larger

institutional transformation in the manner in which child-related

offences are perceived, investigated and handled across the State.

Nothing contained in this compendium shall be construed as diluting

72/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

the seriousness of genuine prosecutions under the POCSO Act or the

statutory protections available to children under the Act.

143. With these observations, this Court concludes the matter,

hoping that the present proceedings shall serve not merely as an

adjudication of individual rights and liabilities, but as a reminder to

every institution that the protection of children is not an

administrative obligation alone, but it is a constitutional covenant, a

moral imperative, and the highest test of a humane society.

144. This Court places on record its deep appreciation for the

valuable assistance rendered by Ms.Mohana Priya, Regional

Psychologist, Department of Child Welfare and Special Services,

Madurai, and Ms.P.Prema Latha, Chairperson, Child Welfare

Committee, Madurai, who were appointed as Child Counsellors in

these proceedings. Both the Child Counsellors have discharged their

responsibilities with remarkable sensitivity, professional competence,

patience, and unwavering commitment towards the welfare,

psychological well-being, and rehabilitation of the children

concerned. Their interaction with the victims was not merely

73/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

institutional in character, but reflected a humane and child-centric

approach founded upon empathy, trust-building, emotional

reassurance, and psychological care.

145. Accordingly, this Court places on record its heartfelt

appreciation and commendation for the exemplary services rendered

by the aforesaid Child Counsellors in aid of justice, child protection,

and restorative care.

146. In fine, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3924 of 2026 is allowed;

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3628 of 2026 is disposed of;

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3769 of 2026 is allowed; and

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21788 of 2025 is allowed.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

To

1. The Inspector of Police,

Thiruchendur AWPS – Police Station,

Thoothukudi District.

74/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

2.The District Social Welfare officer,

Thoothukudi.

3.The Superintendent of Police,

Thoothukudi.

4.The Secretary to Government,

Department of Home,

Prohibition and Excise,

Fort St. George, Chennai.

5.The Secretary,

Directorate of Social Welfare,

Fort St. George, Chennai.

6.The Secretary,

Department of Law and Justice,

Fort St. George, Chennai.

7.The Inspector of Police,

AWPS – Fort Police Station,

Tiruchirappalli District.

8.The Inspector of Police,

Theni Police Station,

Theni.

9.The Secretary,

Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry,

Chennai.

10.The Secretary,

Kerala Bar Council.

11.The Superintendent of Police,

Tiruchirapalli District.

12.The Inspector of Police,

AWPS – Pudukottai,

Pudukottai District.

75/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

13.The District Social Welfare Officer,

Pudukkottai District.

14.The District Collector,

Pudukottai.

15.The Inspector of Police,

Usilampatti All Women Police Station,

Usilampatti,

Madurai District.

16.The Secretary to Government,

Department of Home,

Prohibition and Excise,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.

17.The Secretary,

Directorate of Social Welfare,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.

18.The Secretary,

Department of Law and Justice,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.

19.The Commissioner of Police,

Madurai.

20.The Superintendent of Police,

Thoothukudi District.

21.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

76/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.3924 of 2026 etc.,

01.06.2026

77/77 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis